Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Borrows and Sons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems like there is little desire here for a WP:CSD#G5 inspired deletion and valid claims of notability. In fact, the nominator itself supported keeping the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Borrows and Sons[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Challenged CSDs. This has been tagged as a copyvio of a site which appears to be newer than the WP article page. It was tagged for deletion as one of a set of four pages, all with the same creator (although this was not disclosed by the nominator). It has also been put forward as a WP:CSD#G5 related to creation by a blocked sock, which seems pointlessly damaging to the encyclopedia and more vindictive than constructive. See WP:ANI#Compromised account - GretLomborg ?.

This warrants discussion at AfD, but it's too complex to handle by CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy D. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added one book source. pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we are going to need offline sources for this. It would now come under WP:ORGCRITE or WP:GNG, and I don't think that there are enough sources available online to show that it meets either (as far as I have seen so far - I may be wrong). The only newspaper results I've found are a report of a fire, and and advertisement for its sale in 1912, both of which are standard coverage and don't count for WP:ORGCRITE. I think it's quite likely that there are offline sources, as steam trains and steam engines are specialist fields of interest which have resulted in many books and specialist magazines. Two books which come up in a google search, but which have no preview so I don't know if that's just by association or because they do actually cover this firm, are British Steam Locomotive Builders by James W. Lowe (first published in 1975, republished 2014), and The Golden Age of Steam Locomotive Building by Philip Atkins (1999). I notice that, although the article has existed for nearly 2 years, it has no project affiliations on its Talk page, and no assessments, which seems strange. How do we bring it to the attention of relevant projects, like WP:WikiProject_UK_Railways? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator was indeffed a week after this article was created. I presume details like the talk: page got caught up in that. The original deletion nominator picked four articles to delete, all created by that same editor. How curious.

Lowe is upstairs. I'll see what it has on Borrows. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The worst case here is merger into James Cross and Company which started the business as a spinoff from the St Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway. There are therefore alternatives to deletion which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andy Dingly, please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Doing otherwise "seems pointlessly damaging to the encyclopedia and more vindictive than constructive," as you said. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep there will be enough offline sources, e.g. Industrial Railway Society journal. Tony May (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.